Re: Alternate History
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 5:48 PM Subject: Re: Alternate History > > But, I also realize that I have special responsibilities toward my > children. I don't worry about the twins getting sick; I worry about Ted's > grades. Although we are our brother's and sister's keepers, that doesn't > mean we don't have different responsibilities towards different people. > > The same is true with the life of people in foreign countries. The US > government is responsible to the people of the US. Its primary > responsibility is to look after their interests and to help take care of > their responsibilities. So, IMHO, it must take into account the value of > the lives of all people in the world because that is part of the > responsibility of the people of the United States. > That is exactly the kind of thinking that got President Teddy Dorfman Blake and her mother 86ed out of this reality. xponent Subject Line Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
- Original Message - From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:51 PM Subject: Re: Alternate History > Dan M said: > > > Are you arguing that one American life is worth more than 10, 100, > > 1000, 10,000 lives in Iraq? > > Isn't the job of the US government to govern the US and the job of the > US military to defend the US's interests? In which case, wouldn't it be > a reasonable position for the US government to behave as if American > lives are worth more than Iraqi lives? And, if not, why aren't American > tax dollars all being spent where they can do most good regardless of > whether those who benefit are American or not? I've thought about the best way to answer that for a bit, and I think I'll go with the family metaphor. I don't think that my children are more important than, say, Julia's. I recognize her love for her children is akin to my own. I don't think Teri is more important than Dan; I recognize that his role in Julia's life can be every bit as important as Teri's in mine. But, I also realize that I have special responsibilities toward my children. I don't worry about the twins getting sick; I worry about Ted's grades. Although we are our brother's and sister's keepers, that doesn't mean we don't have different responsibilities towards different people. The same is true with the life of people in foreign countries. The US government is responsible to the people of the US. Its primary responsibility is to look after their interests and to help take care of their responsibilities. So, IMHO, it must take into account the value of the lives of all people in the world because that is part of the responsibility of the people of the United States. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 10:19:16AM -0500, Steve Sloan II wrote: > Unlike most of the the Addams, the Munsters actually looked like > monsters, including a Frankenstein's monster dad, a bride-of- > Frankenstein/vampire mom, a vampire grampa, a werewolf son, and the > joke: a generically beautiful blonde daughter who the others think is > plain. Since the Addams Family started out in cartoons Don't forget the family pet, a fire-breathing "something" living under the stairs (did they call it "Spot"?) -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
Gautam Mukunda wrote, on the "Massachusetts Munster": It's from the Adams family, right? Nope, it's actually from a very similar series that ran at the same time (1964-6 according to IMDB) called "The Munsters". Like the Addams, the Munsters freaked out ordinary people every week. Unlike most of the the Addams, the Munsters actually looked like monsters, including a Frankenstein's monster dad, a bride-of- Frankenstein/vampire mom, a vampire grampa, a werewolf son, and the joke: a generically beautiful blonde daughter who the others think is plain. Since the Addams Family started out in cartoons before the TV show, I would imagine that The Munsters are a rip-off of them. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
At 01:17 PM 4/14/2004 -0700 Trent Shipley wrote: >As an American I >would gladly trade the lives of 1000 Iraqi infants for the life of 1 American >soldier. As an American, I find your viewpoint to be highly offensive. Not that you don't have a right to it - just that it requires a level of racism, inhumanity - I can't find the word for it - which is utterly shocking to me. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think he means Kerry. > > "Massachusetts" is the giveaway. I'm wondering how > he got "Munster". > Unless it's a reference to some TV show however long > ago? > > Please fill us in, Mike! > > Julia It's from the Adams family, right? It's _really_ apt, come to think of it. I hadn't seen it before. I always liked Mickey Kaus's description of him as an "animatronic Lincoln", but that one's priceless as well. Perhaps engaging in the plain man's resentment of a genuinely good-looking one here, but I would say that Kerry gave me the impression for years - long before he was the nominee - that his aides flipped a hatch at the back of his head open and adjusted him with a screwdriver every night :-) = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
At 11:07 PM 4/19/04, Julia Thompson wrote: Nick Arnett wrote: > > Mike Lee wrote: > > > instead of the Massachusetts > > Munster. > > Eh? Who? I think he means Kerry. "Massachusetts" is the giveaway. I'm wondering how he got "Munster". Unless it's a reference to some TV show however long ago? Maybe he thinks he is cheesy . . . Yes, I Know Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
Nick Arnett wrote: > > Mike Lee wrote: > > > instead of the Massachusetts > > Munster. > > Eh? Who? I think he means Kerry. "Massachusetts" is the giveaway. I'm wondering how he got "Munster". Unless it's a reference to some TV show however long ago? Please fill us in, Mike! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
Mike Lee wrote: instead of the Massachusetts Munster. Eh? Who? -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Alternate History
Rich, gloomily asked: > So you're saying that neither major party in the US is > competent? How reassuring... Both parties are incompetent in many respects, but I'll limit discussion here to prosecution of the war with Islam. The American people in general did not consider Islamic terrorism to be a serious issue pre 9/11. It was treated as an annoyance, but not a real threat. If there's any incompetence here, it's on the part of the American voter who cared a lot more about Monica and Enron than the Cole or Beirut or the first try at the WTC. Any attempt by any administration to ratchet up the war to the levels it deserved would have met with huge politcal opposition. It wouldn't just have been risky, but impossible, for Clinton or Bush to really go after these guys before 9/11. There's no question that the Dhimmicrats are incompetent to carry on this war. They just don't get it, any more than they did before 9/11. If they did get it, they would have nominated Leiberman instead of the Massachusetts Munster. Whatever mistakes Bush might make, he gets it. He's not going off in fundamentally the wrong direction. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Alternate History
Mike said: > Allow me to bottom line this: all this hindsight 9/11 carping is going > nowhere politically. Dick Clark and Jamie Gorelick (what an unfortunate > last name) will not show the Dhimmicrats the way to victory. So you're saying that neither major party in the US is competent? How reassuring... Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Alternate History
Dan Minette: > The main criticism was the lack of focus on defense against > terrorism in the US. Allow me to bottom line this: all this hindsight 9/11 carping is going nowhere politically. Dick Clark and Jamie Gorelick (what an unfortunate last name) will not show the Dhimmicrats the way to victory. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > Any death is a tragedy, > Wrong quote. One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is statistics :-/ Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
At 11:23 AM 4/14/04, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Tom Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure that's true. We were basically promised > that the Iraqis as > a whole would welcome us as liberators. Bush went to > that aircraft > carrier to proclaim the end of major combat > operations. I don't think > we were prepared for a high number of American > casualties at all. > Tom Beck Which is fine, since we didn't _get_ a high number of American casualties. Any death is a tragedy, and the death of any American soldier is an immense tragedy. But the British lost 40,000 people in the first few hours of the Somme. We lost ~50,000 in Vietnam. 58,000 in 10 years in Vietnam 54,000 in 3 years in Korea 400,000+ in 4 years in WWII 100,000+ in 1-1/2 years in WWI We've lost less than 600 people in a year in Iraq. By any measure that's an astonishingly low rate of casualties. Furthermore, most Iraqis _do_ seem to be happy that we're there. So that prediction too, is not inaccurate. If you thought that some Iraqis wouldn't oppose our presence before the war, it's because you weren't paying attention and nothing else. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
- Original Message - From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:37 PM Subject: Re: Alternate History > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I haven't seen recent poll results in Iraq on line, which is > > interesting. > > I'm very surprised that you missed this poll: > > http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversa > ry_poll_040314.html > > or > > http://tinyurl.com/2bjph > > It is one of the largest polls of its kind. Scroll down to the > bottom of the page for all the raw data. Thanks you. It's good data. It didn't show up under any of my searches, which is curious. Its interesting to see that most of the Arabs last March thought the US invasion was wrong and humiliated Iraq. That's fairly constant since last summer, which is good, but I'd be interesting to see the numbers after the recent troubles. The numbers wanting the US out soon has increased, which also makes sense...since time has passed. I think the polls still show a volatile situation, one that can either work out or explode in our faces. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't seen recent poll results in Iraq on line, which is > interesting. I'm very surprised that you missed this poll: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversa ry_poll_040314.html or http://tinyurl.com/2bjph It is one of the largest polls of its kind. Scroll down to the bottom of the page for all the raw data. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the best conclusion that can be reached is > that the people of Iraq > have strong mixed feelings about the US. > > Dan M. And that's perfectly reasonable. Given the incredible levels of anti-American propaganda that they have been, and _are_ (in the hands of Al Jazeera) continually exposed to, and the various pathologies that have become sadly endemic to the culture of many Middle Eastern states (it is common, for example, for people who have been in Iraq to tell me about how the Iraqi "man on the street" will, fairly routinely, blame everything that's going on on a Jewish conspiracy) I'm actually a little surprised that the numbers that we have are as favorable as they are. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 3:33 PM Subject: Re: Alternate History > --- Thomas Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then I guess Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bush, > > etc., weren't paying > > attention, because they're the ones who went in > > expecting to be greeted > > as liberators. > > > > Tom Beck > > And we were. I can only imagine how much that must > have upset you, Tom, how much it must have _burned_ to > see people celebrating their liberation by Americans. > My joy at the sight was probably equaled by your pain. > "Greeted as liberators" didn't mean that _everyone_ > felt that way. But at least a majority not only did, > they still seem to. The latest polls that I've seen don't state that clearly. In last summer's Zogby poll sponsored by the American Enterprise magazine, a majority of the people in Iraq stated that they thought the US would hurt Iraq over the next five years...with just over a third saying the opposite.I also quoted earlier polls stating asking if the US was a liberator or an occupier, and the trend went from liberator right after the war to occupier a couple of months later. I can look up my post if need be. I haven't seen recent poll results in Iraq on line, which is interesting. The poll results are definitely complicated. The same poll that states that most people think the US is an occupier states that most people don't want the US to leave in 6 months or less. That isn't really a contradiction, but an indication that one shouldn't freely extrapolate from data. I think the best conclusion that can be reached is that the people of Iraq have strong mixed feelings about the US. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
And we were. I can only imagine how much that must have upset you, Tom, how much it must have _burned_ to see people celebrating their liberation by Americans. My joy at the sight was probably equaled by your pain. "Greeted as liberators" didn't mean that _everyone_ felt that way. But at least a majority not only did, they still seem to. Doesn't burn me at all. And your attempt to demean me does not at all change the fact that hope is not a plan, and to go in with a hope of being recognized as liberators is not a substitute for understanding the extreme difficulties involved in switching from being liberators to occupiers. Especially as, we went in under false pretenses! -- Tom Beck my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/ "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last." - Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
I'll say it again. In 1997 a Jordanian asked me why America was killing 1000 babies a month with sanctions against Iraq. Except, it wasn't America killing those babies - it was Saddam Hussein. I never could stomach Arabs (or anyone else) letting him off the hook. His people were starving and he was building more palaces. Even when he was permitted to sell some oil, he stole the money. But nobody ever blamed him. -- Tom Beck my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/ "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last." - Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
--- Thomas Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then I guess Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bush, > etc., weren't paying > attention, because they're the ones who went in > expecting to be greeted > as liberators. > > Tom Beck And we were. I can only imagine how much that must have upset you, Tom, how much it must have _burned_ to see people celebrating their liberation by Americans. My joy at the sight was probably equaled by your pain. "Greeted as liberators" didn't mean that _everyone_ felt that way. But at least a majority not only did, they still seem to. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
--- Thomas Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unless you're one of them. Well, I might be. I volunteered for the Naval Reserves after September 11th, and didn't get in because I'm colorblind, so I might have been, as well. Both past and future tense. For someone who throws around accusations of being a chickenhawk so freely, Tom, I'm calling you out. I bet you've never lifted a finger to serve your country, much less been willing to risk anything. Why would you, after all? You've made it clear how you feel about Amerians. > > I find it disquieting that it's always the > noncombatant conservatives > who so sanguinely accept any casualties at all. At least we're not rooting for them, as so many of your friends are: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/015026.php Somehow, Tom, I think your so-called sympathy for American soliders is newly comeby. > If > it was one of your > relatives, I doubt you'd be so dismissive of "les > than 600". So dismissive? You arrogant bastard. You're disgusting. I mourn for every one of those brave men and women - and I do it genuinely. More than a few of the people serving there - both civilians and military - are friends of mine. I'd bet that you can't say the same - anyone with the contempt that you have for Americans won't have friends who are willing to serve. For a long time, Tom, I thought you were just someone so arrogant that you couldn't conceive of anyone disagreeing with you. I was wrong. That was far too kind. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
On Wednesday 2004-04-14 12:59, Thomas Beck wrote: > > Are you arguing that one American life is worth more than 10, 100, > > 1000, > > 10,000 lives in Iraq? I hope not, but this post makes it sound to me > > that > > you do. Clarification would be appreciated...especially if I > > misunderstood > > what you wrote. > > I didn't realize it would come out that way, which was not my intention. I'll say it again. In 1997 a Jordanian asked me why America was killing 1000 babies a month with sanctions against Iraq. I said that Iraq was an enemy of the USA; therefore, realpolitik meant that America had to keep Iraq weak. We had two choices sanctions or war. With sanctions Iraqi's died, with war Americans and Iraqi's died. As an American I would gladly trade the lives of 1000 Iraqi infants for the life of 1 American soldier. (As an Arab, I would expect her to gladly do the reverse.) That's still the case today. Dead Iraqis are infinitely preferable to dead Americans (or Westerners)...if one happens to be an American. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
Are you arguing that one American life is worth more than 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 lives in Iraq? I hope not, but this post makes it sound to me that you do. Clarification would be appreciated...especially if I misunderstood what you wrote. I didn't realize it would come out that way, which was not my intention. -- Tom Beck my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/ "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last." - Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
Dan M said: > Are you arguing that one American life is worth more than 10, 100, > 1000, 10,000 lives in Iraq? Isn't the job of the US government to govern the US and the job of the US military to defend the US's interests? In which case, wouldn't it be a reasonable position for the US government to behave as if American lives are worth more than Iraqi lives? And, if not, why aren't American tax dollars all being spent where they can do most good regardless of whether those who benefit are American or not? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
- Original Message - From: "Thomas Beck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:18 PM Subject: Re: Alternate History > > Which is fine, since we didn't _get_ a high number of > > American casualties. Any death is a tragedy, and the > > death of any American soldier is an immense tragedy. > > But the British lost 40,000 people in the first few > > hours of the Somme. We lost ~50,000 in Vietnam. > > We've lost less than 600 people in a year in Iraq. By > > any measure that's an astonishingly low rate of > > casualties. > > > Unless you're one of them. > > I find it disquieting that it's always the noncombatant conservatives > who so sanguinely accept any casualties at all. If it was one of your > relatives, I doubt you'd be so dismissive of "les than 600". Especially > considering that the soldiers who have died and been wounded and had > their tours of duty endlessly extended and the rest of the country and > the entire world were lied to about why the US invaded Iraq and those > "less than 600" died (most of them since Bush disgustingly went on > board that aircraft carrier and declared combat over). Do you think the > American people would have supported this war if we knew in February > 2003 what we know now, that Iraq does not - and DID NOT - have WMD? No > matter how much your bones shriek that we needed to free the Iraqi > people of a tyrant, would that alone have sufficed to generate American > support for the war? I don't think so. Under those circumstances, even > a single American casualty is too many. Are you arguing that one American life is worth more than 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 lives in Iraq? I hope not, but this post makes it sound to me that you do. Clarification would be appreciated...especially if I misunderstood what you wrote. Also, it may be reasonable to cut Gautam a bit of slack as a non-combattant, since he has been and continues to be working hard to put himself in harms way. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
Which is fine, since we didn't _get_ a high number of American casualties. Any death is a tragedy, and the death of any American soldier is an immense tragedy. But the British lost 40,000 people in the first few hours of the Somme. We lost ~50,000 in Vietnam. We've lost less than 600 people in a year in Iraq. By any measure that's an astonishingly low rate of casualties. Unless you're one of them. I find it disquieting that it's always the noncombatant conservatives who so sanguinely accept any casualties at all. If it was one of your relatives, I doubt you'd be so dismissive of "les than 600". Especially considering that the soldiers who have died and been wounded and had their tours of duty endlessly extended and the rest of the country and the entire world were lied to about why the US invaded Iraq and those "less than 600" died (most of them since Bush disgustingly went on board that aircraft carrier and declared combat over). Do you think the American people would have supported this war if we knew in February 2003 what we know now, that Iraq does not - and DID NOT - have WMD? No matter how much your bones shriek that we needed to free the Iraqi people of a tyrant, would that alone have sufficed to generate American support for the war? I don't think so. Under those circumstances, even a single American casualty is too many. To have more people die since the end of major combat operations than before, and to have them die because they and we were lied to - and because this Administration obviously was completely unprepared for occupying Iraq after so easily conquering it - is disgraceful. -- Tom Beck my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/ "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last." - Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
On Apr 14, 2004, at 12:23 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Furthermore, most Iraqis _do_ seem to be happy that we're there. So that prediction too, is not inaccurate. If you thought that some Iraqis wouldn't oppose our presence before the war, it's because you weren't paying attention and nothing else. Then I guess Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bush, etc., weren't paying attention, because they're the ones who went in expecting to be greeted as liberators. Tom Beck ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
Gautam said: > You're quite right - my memory betrayed me on that > one. Sorry. I only knew because I made just the same mistake a few months ago. I think the similarity between British casualties on the first day of the Somme and total US fatalities in Vietnam lodged in my mind, and then got blurred a bit. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
--- Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gautam said: > > > But the British lost 40,000 people in the first > few > > hours of the Somme. > > Just a small note: your other figures are for > fatalities, but these > figures for the Somme are casualties. Of those, > about a third were > fatalities; not that that makes it any less > horrific. You're quite right - my memory betrayed me on that one. Sorry. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
Gautam said: > But the British lost 40,000 people in the first few > hours of the Somme. Just a small note: your other figures are for fatalities, but these figures for the Somme are casualties. Of those, about a third were fatalities; not that that makes it any less horrific. Rich, who decided not to continue the thread about Christianity over Easter out of respect, and now isn't sure if he has the time or enthusiasm to continue it at all. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 07:36:13PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > I'm not clear on why you believe this. You did read Dan's post? He made a number of good points about the costs of the Iraq war. The costs he and I are referring to are not just in casualties, they are in opportunity cost in Afghanistan, foreign relations, and in dollars as well. Add in the fact that WMD were not found, and it doesn't look to me like it was worth it. I had thought before the war that things would go better in Iraq and that foreign relations wouldn't suffer as much as they have. Now I see I was wrong about that. My current prediction for a favorable (not great, just okay) outcome in Iraq, long-term, is much less than 50% now. As you say, things are not going well and I don't see any reasonable plan to improve them. But I could be wrong again! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
--- Tom Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure that's true. We were basically promised > that the Iraqis as > a whole would welcome us as liberators. Bush went to > that aircraft > carrier to proclaim the end of major combat > operations. I don't think > we were prepared for a high number of American > casualties at all. > Tom Beck Which is fine, since we didn't _get_ a high number of American casualties. Any death is a tragedy, and the death of any American soldier is an immense tragedy. But the British lost 40,000 people in the first few hours of the Somme. We lost ~50,000 in Vietnam. We've lost less than 600 people in a year in Iraq. By any measure that's an astonishingly low rate of casualties. Furthermore, most Iraqis _do_ seem to be happy that we're there. So that prediction too, is not inaccurate. If you thought that some Iraqis wouldn't oppose our presence before the war, it's because you weren't paying attention and nothing else. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
Tom Beck wrote: This is the second time I have seen the "Jordan" analogy. Personally, I would be at least somewhat disappointed to see Iraq turn into a self-interested, provincial, monarchy. Why? That's what Dubya has turned the USA into. Sort of... Come November, we get to pretend to choose a new self-interested monarch or continue with the current one. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
I'm not clear on why you believe this. The overall number of American and Iraqi casualties is lower - significantly lower - than most people would have anticipated before the war (myself included). I'm not sure that's true. We were basically promised that the Iraqis as a whole would welcome us as liberators. Bush went to that aircraft carrier to proclaim the end of major combat operations. I don't think we were prepared for a high number of American casualties at all. -- Tom Beck my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/ "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last." - Dr. Jerry Pournelle --___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
This is the second time I have seen the "Jordan" analogy. Personally, I would be at least somewhat disappointed to see Iraq turn into a self-interested, provincial, monarchy. Why? That's what Dubya has turned the USA into. -- Tom Beck my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/ "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last." - Dr. Jerry Pournelle --___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 04:41:23PM -0500, Dan > Minette wrote: > Well said. I clearly remember what you wrote before > and in the early > stages of the Iraq war. I think that events have > shown me to be wrong > about the Iraq invasion -- as you say, although it > turned out better for > Iraqis, overall the cost was too high. I think that > of all the people > that posted thoughts and opinions then, the > following events have shown > your ideas to be the most correct and the best > course of action. If only > Bush had you as an adviser! > > -- > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ > I'm not clear on why you believe this. The overall number of American and Iraqi casualties is lower - significantly lower - than most people would have anticipated before the war (myself included). For the other things - it's too soon to tell, but some early signs of reform in the Muslim world are very good. Within Iraq itself things are clearly very far from ideal - on the other hand, the predictions of many opponents of the war were clearly much farther from where we are today than the predictions of most proponents. No massive refugee crisis, no Iraqi civil war, etc. etc. etc. Sistani, much to my shock, even appears to be something of a democrat - surely a hopeful sign for the future - while al Sadr appears to have little or no support in the mass of the Iraqi population. There are, equally, many bad signs, and it's foolish to underplay them. But it seems to me that the worst thing you can say about the war right now is that it's too soon to tell how this is going to turn out. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
At 04:41 PM 4/13/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: >I hope that my fears turn groundless, and that an Iraq that resembles >Jordan does emerge. This is the second time I have seen the "Jordan" analogy.Personally, I would be at least somewhat disappointed to see Iraq turn into a self-interested, provincial, monarchy.The goal must be, at minimum, for Iraq to become akin to a Turkey - and the actual goal should be even bolder. >It is clear that I believe that, even with the recent troubles, that our >actions in Iraq have been in the best interest of the people of Iraq. I >also still think that our own best interests have not been served by moving >in Iraq when we did. and >This post has wandered to a couple of other topics, but my point is that >the criticism of Bush is not that he should have invaded Afghanistan in >March, 2001. Rather, its that his plan for countering terrorism by >focusing on countries like Iraq who sponsor terrorism instead of defense >and AQ is/was not the best. I think that it is important to note that invading Iraq was not a policy undertaken solely for short-term gains. The greatest gains from this policy are going to come in the very long term.I think that it is important to not be short-sighted in analyzing our Iraqi policy. I posted some time ago a message entitled "Winning the War on Terror."I am convinced, and I think that this Administration is likewise convinced, that no amount of police action and Homeland Security in the United States would not permit us to foil every Al Qaeda plot against the United States. Rather, we must address also address the root problems of oppression in the Middle East. Nevertheless, there have been some heartening short term gains: -US troops were able to be removed from the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia with the Saudi government's request -There has been increased pressure on the Saudi government to reform, most recently exhibited in the "Year of the Petition" in 2003 in Saudi Arabia -The US is no longer being blamed for UN sanctions which were resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi children every year. Of course, the US is now being blamed for other deaths - but these will end in time, whereas the deaths on sanctions appeared likely to extend into perpetuity (or worse, the sanctions were lifted, and Saddam would be free to purchase DPRK and Pakistani weapons on the international black market.) -The Iraqi people are now living under the most liberal constitution in the Arab world -Saddam Hussein is no longer free to purchase DPRK and Pakistani weapons on the international black market, nor is he free to sell chemical and biological weapons on the international black market -Libya has become remarkably forthcoming about dismantling its nuclear program -Iranian dissidents have supplied us with key intelligence leading to dramatic discoveries of the advanced nature of Iran's nuclear program All of the above represent substanital improvements to the US's security situation. >Focusing on Afghanistan and AQ while we improved our >capacity to win the peace after winning the war has been my preferred >strategy. I don't think that the US had that luxury. For how long would you have had the US focus on Afghanistan before focusing on the kernel of terrorism in the Middle East? Secondly, I think that the period immediately following September 11th provided a unique opportunity for the United States - a period of time in which the American people was willing to take bold steps to reshape the world.It is unclear how long this moment of opportunity for taking bold measures would have lasted. Lastly, it is worth remembering that the sanctions regime in Iraq was on life support before September 11th. France, Russia, and China had made their impatience with the sanctions regime well known, and their strong interest in returning to business as usual. Inspections had not occurred in Iraq for three years. Rage at the humanitarian consequences of the sanctions was festering. (And this is all without mentioning the recent discoveries of how rampant the corruption in the sanctions regime was.) It is unclear how much longer the status quo policy on Iraq that you seemed to have advocated would have proved to be sustainable. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 04:41:23PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > This post has wandered to a couple of other topics, but my point > is that the criticism of Bush is not that he should have invaded > Afghanistan in March, 2001. Rather, its that his plan for countering > terrorism by focusing on countries like Iraq who sponsor terrorism > instead of defense and AQ is/was not the best. Well said. I clearly remember what you wrote before and in the early stages of the Iraq war. I think that events have shown me to be wrong about the Iraq invasion -- as you say, although it turned out better for Iraqis, overall the cost was too high. I think that of all the people that posted thoughts and opinions then, the following events have shown your ideas to be the most correct and the best course of action. If only Bush had you as an adviser! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Alternate History
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:42 AM Subject: Alternate History >Announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Republican presidential nomination, >Senator John McCain said today that "George W. Bush was very foolish and >naïve; he didn't realize he was being pushed into this needless conflict by >oil interests that wanted to seize Afghanistan to run a pipeline across >it." McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York >City. >posted 10:57 a.m. A nice fantasy, but it is based on a false assumption. The unique criticism of Bush is not that he didn't invade Afghanistan, as Clinton did not. It is true that Kerry has stated that both Clinton and Bush should have invaded Afghanistan...and seems to have focused on Clinton's ability to convince the US to go to war in the Balkans as a precedent. The main criticism, outside of Kerry, was not that there wasn't greater offensive action against Afghanistan. A unilateral invasion of the country, without support of any neighboring country would have been extremely difficult to sell. The main criticism was the lack of focus on defense against terrorism in the US. It is not unreasonable to contrast Reno's description of daily principals meetings that went late into the night working on the potential for terrorism at the millennium with the lack of any principals meeting under Bush. Any organization knows the importance of questions that the leadership team is sweating out. They also know the message attached to having to run things through the right channels over several months before the first principals meeting. The first action is what is expected for a top priority issue, the latter is what one expects for a back burner issue. My sense is that Bush was less interested in fighting off the alligators (AQ) and much more interested in a big plan to drain the swamp. Thus, he was focused on regime change in places like N. Korea, Iraq, and Iran, and far less focused on stopping terrorists acting in the US. Before 9-11, that was not a totally unreasonable position. You can also see it in his pushing of an unworkable missile defense system. Last I heard, we are still planning on deploying it in the next year, working or not. I can see the appeal in offensive actions against states that support terrorism and missile defense, compared to the relatively mundane work of ferreting out what is going on in the US. But, it does appear, in hindsight, that the de-emphasis of defense was mistaken. We now see the continuation of that policy. Resources have been diverted from Afghanistan to the war in Iraq. We have been willing to risk the support of allies in order to invade Iraq. We have also been willing live with a situation where those governments that did ally us had to do it at risk to themselves. Thus, we have at least contributed to AQ's big victory in Spain by helping to set up a situation where the government was at risk in its re-election by acting against the expressed wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people. It is clear that I believe that, even with the recent troubles, that our actions in Iraq have been in the best interest of the people of Iraq. I also still think that our own best interests have not been served by moving in Iraq when we did. Focusing on Afghanistan and AQ while we improved our capacity to win the peace after winning the war has been my preferred strategy. I see parallels between the Bush Administration and the leadership of my old company. There is no doubt that the Bush Administration has far more competent people, but they both are/had been very firm in their beliefs in their own worldview. They both seemed fairly insulated from ideas that countered their assumptions. The strongest example of this was the view of the nature of the end of the war. The defense department was allowed to take it over to begin with; having pushed aside the "nervous Nellies" in the State department. There was a group in the White House who had been listening to the exiles talk about how welcome we and they would be, and how easy it would be to set up Iraq afterwards. Now, we may be near a cusp. Things can still turn out OK for the US, with things settling down after the interim government is in control. But, if I'm reading it correctly, there is some very astute political maneuvering in Iraq that includes the use of mobs and private armies. It is also possible that there will be just one free election, with radical Shiites taking a majority of the seats. It seems clear to me that pro-US candidates would not fare well. Our best hope seems to be moderates who will bad mouth us to get elected, and then work with us later. I have no objections to Bush's goals for Iraq. I think his convictions blinded him to the nature of the problem. From how I read the situation, he was very strongly influenced by the idea that the problem
